Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriphiel
It already did. The Civil Rights Movement. The leaders preached non-violence in the face of horrible treatment, and it worked. Also, remember when Ghandi convinced his fellow people to do away with violent retaliation, and to converse peacefully with the British? If they had ignored him and started using terrorism against the British in order to achieve liberation, nothing would have been solved and thousands would have perished. Time has told that understanding and respect will always solve more than blind retaliation.
|
oh... i'm not arguing against non violence. i'm arguing against compromise in the face of thuggery and extortion.
edit - the ghandi / civil rights example is funny cause you can use it as an analogy here. what tactic did they use? passive defiance in the face of thuggery. when they were attacked with violence, they continued to use civil disobedience to get their point across. to me, saying we should compromise in the face of thuggery is akin to saying ghandi & co should have given up when they were attacked. i mean they should have known better right? what did they expect, provoking those racist white people like that? you would think they would have learned not to poke the polar bear.
Quote:
|
Now, as agreed, you'll concede my point? And the argument is finally over?Great! Let's go get some waffles, i'm really hungry and I need a good breakfast... but, uh, I left my wallet in my other pants. Mind getting the bill, friend?
|
sorry, can't do waffles. i'm on a pork-only diet out of principle.